Quality management in health care · 2010
Impact of online counseling on drug use: a pilot study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alemi Farrokh, Haack Mary, Nemes Susie, Harge Angela, Baghi Heibatollah
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of online counseling abuse counseling on drug use among underserved patients.
METHODS: Subjects were recruited from an Indian Reservation in Eagle Butte, South Dakota; a family court in Newark, New Jersey; a probation office in Alexandria, Virginia; and a co-occurring disorders treatment clinic in Washington, District of Columbia. Subjects were predominantly poor, undereducated, unemployed, court involved, or diagnosed with co-occurring psychiatric disorders. A total of 79 subjects volunteered to participate in the project. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. The control and experimental groups were both issued an Internet-ready computer and 1 year of Internet service. Only the experimental group had access to online counseling intervention. Drug use was measured using a combination of self-usage reporting and supervised urine tests.
RESULTS: Urine tests were available for 37% of subjects. Exit surveys containing self-reported usage were obtained from 54% of the subjects. Self-usage reports or urine test results were available from 70% of subjects. The difference of the rates of drug use in the control and experimental groups (as calculated from urine tests or through self-report) was not significantly different from zero, suggesting that online counseling had not led to a reduction in substance use. It is possible that the study lacked sufficient power to detect small differences in the rate of drug use in the experimental and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to establish the efficacy of online counseling in hard-to-reach populations.
METHODS: Subjects were recruited from an Indian Reservation in Eagle Butte, South Dakota; a family court in Newark, New Jersey; a probation office in Alexandria, Virginia; and a co-occurring disorders treatment clinic in Washington, District of Columbia. Subjects were predominantly poor, undereducated, unemployed, court involved, or diagnosed with co-occurring psychiatric disorders. A total of 79 subjects volunteered to participate in the project. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. The control and experimental groups were both issued an Internet-ready computer and 1 year of Internet service. Only the experimental group had access to online counseling intervention. Drug use was measured using a combination of self-usage reporting and supervised urine tests.
RESULTS: Urine tests were available for 37% of subjects. Exit surveys containing self-reported usage were obtained from 54% of the subjects. Self-usage reports or urine test results were available from 70% of subjects. The difference of the rates of drug use in the control and experimental groups (as calculated from urine tests or through self-report) was not significantly different from zero, suggesting that online counseling had not led to a reduction in substance use. It is possible that the study lacked sufficient power to detect small differences in the rate of drug use in the experimental and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to establish the efficacy of online counseling in hard-to-reach populations.